NationStates Jolt Archive

My top 5 were hard to narrow down so I have my 5 FAVORITE then my opinon of the 5 best.

Favorites
1-Erwin Rommel = His initive is why he is one of my favorites. At Matuhr he left 1400 men to "Surround" a fresh New Zealand division while his tanks charged ahead towards El Ammien. Thats called risky, but it worked for the most part.
2-Belisarius = He is very overlooked in history but he kicked some major butt.
3-Gunderian = Practically invented the ideal of Blitzkrieg.
4-Hoth = Had good record. And with a name like Hoth how couldnt you like him?
5-Robert E. Lee = Fought hard and well. Plus he has a ryming name :D

Best
1-Hard to pick. Its a tie between Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder or Zhou Yu. Von Moltke for the swift victories over France and Austria. Zhou Yu becuase of Chi Bi. (At Chi Bi Wei China had an estimated 200 000 - 800 000 men he had 50 000)
2-Hermann Der Cherusker = 127 (At beginning, later 4000) vs 20 000 and he won. That is all I have to say.
3-Von Mannstein = He served very well even though he fought with Hitler over almost every action and move they were making he avoided death because he was to good to throw away.
4-Ghengis Khan = He led the MONGOLIANS to conquest of most of the known world at the time and established the largest land empir eever.
5-Napoleon = Ambitious. His victory at Austerlitz proved he was good. At Waterloo hecould have won if he didnt have that stomach ache.

My favorite General would have to be hands down Geneal MacArthur. If that one fails than I would have to pick General Rommel.

Smunkee
WYTYG
FD
Gravlen
PM


... oh..

Nevermind then..

NS

dammit! i want capitals! what is the problem with multiple capital letters!?!?!?

and then allowing them when i make an edit to complain!?!?

Zhuokov or Kutusov, I like both of 'em. Wouldnt want to serve under either though :P Peter the Great is up there as well, even if he usually had a false start or two before he kicked ass and took names.

Best?
Atilla the Hun, Genghis Khan, take your pick of the barbarian crop. I would say that Alexander the Great tops them all though.

1. George S. Patton - a total jerk and arguably insane, but effective and brilliant.
2. Dwight Eisenhower - Knew how to inspire people.
3. Irwin Rommel - Brilliant tactician
4. Ghengis Khan - Probably the best use of guerilla warfare.
5. Julius Caesar - Ruthless, conniving, liar and conquered most of the known world.

Honorable mention

Boudicca and Zenobia - If they had the military discipline and infrastructure of the Romans they fought against, they would have won.

George Patton
Lewis "Chesty" Puller
Douglas MacArthur
Stonewall Jackson
Erwin Rommel

In mine I appolagize ahead of time to those of you that feel Im a Nazi because 4 of those Generals were. Im not saything this to anyone that posted already I just know a few that will start spouti off and calling me a Nazi when they read it.

No love for the Ruskies >_>

No love for the Ruskies >_>

They had a general...I though Commies made decisions as a community so all the soldiers would have had a say...no wait that is somthing else...

by the way, Shakal is a NAZI



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg


ZIEG HIEL!!!!!!


I'm Just playing. :D

The Panzergraf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyazinth_Graf_Strachwitz_von_Gross-Zauche_und_Camminetz) comes to mind.

And just in terms of building up a unit and motivating it to the max (and not in terms of politics), Fritz Witt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Witt).

Genghis Khan wasn't the one who came up with the Mongols' strategy. That was Subotai.

Obviously Napoleon and Alexander.

Marlborough is certainly up there. George Washington and Simon Bolivar left a certain mark on history as well.

Forgive the lack of originality, but here are some favorites of mine:

U.S. Generals

- George Washington/Rochambeau
- Winfield Scott
- Pershing
- Andy Jackson
- U.S. Grant
- R.E. Lee/Stonewall Jackson
- MacArthur
- Curtis LeMay
- Eisenhower
- Patton

Historical/Other Countries

- Flavius Belisarius
- Alexander the Great
- Alexander Nevsky
- Gustavus Adolphus
- Władysław II Jagiełło
- Leonidas
- Napoleon
- Leo the Isaurian (iconoclasm aside)
- Wilhelm Keitel
- B. Montgomery


Honorable Mention

- Casimir Pulaski
- Richard Montgomery

..feel free to rip these apart. :)

Name Your Favorite General! MILLS (http://www.generalmills.com/corporate/index.aspx).

Hannibal & Scipio both great in my mind hannibal for doing the impossible and Scipio for doing what needed to be done, as well as Alexander the Great and Napolean.

I'm rather partial to Flavius Belisarius myself...

No-one has mentioned Gaius Marius. Having joined the Roman army as a legionary, he somehow clawed his way up through the ranks to become a general. Depending on which historian you agree with, he either virtually invented what we think of as the Roman legion, or he applied significant finishing touches to it. A pretty astonishing life in a society where ordinary people were expected to know their place.
Plus he introduced the Romans to the idea of voting by secret ballot. This was very significant in an age when threatening and/or bribing voters was commonplace.

Julius Caesar probably owed much of his early popularity to the fact that Marius was his uncle, and he used to credit Marius with teaching him the art of generalship.

Monash, Australia's WW1 General and arguably the only one in the entire conflict who knew what he was doing :D

I also approve of Patton and Scipio Africanus.

Nationstates General. :)

I like General Specific myself.

My to 5 faves:

Von Manstein
Guderian
Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
Georgy Zhukov
Vo Nguyen Giap


No love for the Ruskies >_>

Pre-Soviet era: Alexander Suvorov was probably the single greatest military mind Russia produced - never lost a battle, AFAIR.

They had a general...I though Commies made decisions as a community so all the soldiers would have had a say...no wait that is somthing else...

Certainly the Soviet era Russia fielded some great generals - Georgy Zhukov for example.

Zhuokov or Kutusov, I like both of 'em. Wouldnt want to serve under either though :P Peter the Great is up there as well, even if he usually had a false start or two before he kicked ass and took names.

You forgot the most important and greatest of the Russian generals - Generals Winter, Snow, and Mud. ;)

You forgot the most important and greatest of the Russian generals - Generals Winter, Snow, and Mud. ;)

In WWII, they were ably supported by Colonel Conditions So Cold That German Tank Tracks Freeze Overnight.

- Wilhelm Keitel

..feel free to rip these apart. :)
With pleasure:

What the fuck?! Lakaitel wasn't a great general. He wasn't even a very good sycophant!

In WWII, they were ably supported by Colonel Conditions So Cold That German Tank Tracks Freeze Overnight.

:D

With pleasure:

What the fuck?! Lakaitel wasn't a great general. He wasn't even a very good sycophant!

One of my history professors made a pretty good case in favor of Keitel being the German Eisenhower, or at least I found it convincing.. He did oversee the German army over the entire course of the war, even if he famously opposed the attack on France in the planning phase.. but I probably shouldn't have included generals I hadn't studied at length on my own, so I'll just concede the point and rethink it later. :) I may have been too quick to trust his opinion since he was a German immigrant and seemed to be an authority on the topic..

I like General Specific myself.
Tactical Genius, he was. The Sheep Powered Ray Gun was a stroke of brilliance.

One of my history professors made a pretty good case in favor of Keitel being the German Eisenhower, or at least I found it convincing..
Well, Keitel and Jodl were the two most infuriating characters in the story of the Wehrmacht. I mean, neither was particularly stupid or bad.

But they were spineless. They controlled the front generals' access to Hitler, and made sure they never bothered him with details like the lack of winter clothing, or the fact that the division on the map had shrunk to a hundred guys. When people with reputation like Rommel or Guderian managed to get to Hitler afterall, and asked for things like taking back the front and shortening supply lines, he always went "well, what do my generals think?". Keitel and Jodl would always agree with Hitler, so he'd always outvote the generals who actually knew what was going on.

I mean, I think it was sad that they died the way they did. They probably didn't commit a real crime and paid for the fact that the real Nazi leadership had escaped trial. But in a way, the way they lived their lives gives the lack of dignity they suffered in death just that little bit of justification.

1 - Julius Caesar
2 - Hannibal Barca
3 - Henri de la Tour d´Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne
4- Napoleon
5- Erwin Rommel

1 - Julius Caesar
2 - Hannibal Barca
3 - Henri de la Tour d´Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne
4- Napoleon
5- Erwin Rommel

1. Bill Slim
2. Rowland Hill
3. José de San Martin
4. Scipio
5. Thomas Fairfax

Yeah, Belisarius roxxx, together with Aecius (or whatever was his name), the last Roman. Also Mannerheim, the guy in charge in Finland during Winter War.

Zhou Yu becuase of Chi Bi. (At Chi Bi Wei China had an estimated 200 000 - 800 000 men he had 50 000)

1) That's a gross overestimation of Cao Wei troops
2) Cao Cao did at least as well at Guan Du.

Field Marshall Blucher, just for the "Young Frankenstein" ref ;)

4. Ghengis Khan - Probably the best use of guerilla warfare.
I wouldn't really call it guerilla warfare.

Boudicca and Zenobia - If they had the military discipline and infrastructure of the Romans they fought against, they would have won.
Boudicca lost with 230.000 against 10.000 Romans (Wiki-numbers). Hardly a great tactician. Commanders as Vercingetorix the Gaul did much better wit the same drawbacks.

Genghis Khan wasn't the one who came up with the Mongols' strategy. That was Subotai.
Why do you think that?

My top 5 were hard to narrow down so I have my 5 FAVORITE then my opinon of the 5 best.

Favorites
1-Erwin Rommel = His initive is why he is one of my favorites. At Matuhr he left 1400 men to "Surround" a fresh New Zealand division while his tanks charged ahead towards El Ammien. Thats called risky, but it worked for the most part.
2-Belisarius = He is very overlooked in history but he kicked some major butt.
3-Gunderian = Practically invented the ideal of Blitzkrieg.
4-Hoth = Had good record. And with a name like Hoth how couldnt you like him?
5-Robert E. Lee = Fought hard and well. Plus he has a ryming name :D

Best
1-Hard to pick. Its a tie between Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder or Zhou Yu. Von Moltke for the swift victories over France and Austria. Zhou Yu becuase of Chi Bi. (At Chi Bi Wei China had an estimated 200 000 - 800 000 men he had 50 000)
2-Hermann Der Cherusker = 127 (At beginning, later 4000) vs 20 000 and he won. That is all I have to say.
3-Von Mannstein = He served very well even though he fought with Hitler over almost every action and move they were making he avoided death because he was to good to throw away.
4-Ghengis Khan = He led the MONGOLIANS to conquest of most of the known world at the time and established the largest land empir eever.
5-Napoleon = Ambitious. His victory at Austerlitz proved he was good. At Waterloo hecould have won if he didnt have that stomach ache.

I don't need no steenking favorite general.

NSGeneral :)

Personally, George Patton, though I rate Zhukov a close second.

Did somebody actually say MacArthur? What on earth could possess you to put that idiot politician first?

My two favorites would probably be Hannibal and Ghengis Khan.

US Superweapon, followed closely by China Nuke. China Tank deserves an honourable mention, and GLA Stealth is awesome if you don't mind your game dragging on for hours.

Nation States General, of course!

But seriously, the greatest is Alexander the Great of Macedon.

I don't need no steenking favorite general.

That is a truly classic movie reference.

I'm not sure I can admire anyone who organises the mass killings of others, in battle or otherwise, however 'good' they may be at doing that.

I'm not sure I can admire anyone who organises the mass killings of others, in battle or otherwise, however 'good' they may be at doing that.

Naked Force has resolved more problems than anything else in human history. I seriously doubt that will ever change.

shakal, how can none of your faves be the best??? interesting. my 2 favorite generals are gemeral mills (great cereals) and generalissimo franco (he's still dead) (plus generalissimo is so cool) One question.... If qaddafi gave himself his own rank, why would he NOT make himself a general??? because he's ubatz (sp?) and a stunad that's why.

That is a truly classic movie reference.

Blazing Saddles is one of the best off-the-wall comedy movies ever.

Personally, George Patton, though I rate Zhukov a close second.

Did somebody actually say MacArthur? What on earth could possess you to put that idiot politician first?

Oh the irony.

Blazing Saddles is one of the best off-the-wall comedy movies ever.

Truth.

Favorite general hands down

General Grievous.....


real life

MacArthur
Rommel

Oh the irony.

? Expand, please.

Erwin Rommel= was actually an excellent General- lost to Monty tho plus my Grandad's brother died in Libya so not too fond of desert axis.
Robert E. Lee = Lost the civil war for the confederacy- damn good reason to like him.
Napoleon = Lost to stomach ache. Need I say more?- Oh and tried to beat us Brits.

Montgomery ftw

General Tso, because he is just delicious.

I think the best general is probably Erich von Manstein. I may oppose the side he fought for, but I still admire him as a brilliant and able tactician in a class of his own.

MILLS (http://www.generalmills.com/corporate/index.aspx).

Funny, I thought that would have been Ruffy's favorite.

Napoleon, he was sweet. He was alteast the best of his time and the abitition and other phycological things about him are interesting as hell to learn, and he totally revolutionized warfare for the rest of human history.

Guderian
Napoleon
Caesar
Hannibal
Alexander
Ramses
Tamerlane
GENGHIS KHAN
Sun Tzu

Personally, George Patton, though I rate Zhukov a close second.

Did somebody actually say MacArthur? What on earth could possess you to put that idiot politician first?

Inchon? Pacific theater?

Oda Nobunaga. Signalled the end of the Japanese cavalry by using 3000 Italian made muskets against them.

I wouldn't really call it guerilla warfare.
Particularly since the Mongols outnumbered their enemies.


Why do you think that?
Every book I've ever read on the subject states that. Plus, Genghis Khan died extremely early on in the conquest.

General Disarray.

Every book I've ever read on the subject states that. Plus, Genghis Khan died extremely early on in the conquest.died in 1227 by then most of modern Russia. the middle east and Northern China were under the Khans control...Grandson conquered S. China......the "Hordes" were not as extensive as myths would have it ...typical campaigning army was about 30,000....

General Grievous (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Grievous)

1. General William Tecumseh Sherman, the first modern general.

2. Mao Tse Tung. True, he was a Red, but he was able to devise how to effectively wage a guerrilla war.

Alexander the Great


...if I limit myself to American generals, I'll say James Longstreet.

1. General William Tecumseh Sherman, the first modern general.

Also a racist, sadist war criminal who said that to the Southerners "death was mercy," committed myriad war crimes during the Civil War (against civilians, I might add), and after the war did his fair share of massacring Native Americans. Truly a piece of dishonorable scum.

George W. Bush, the greatest tactician and military mind the world has ever seen.

George W. Bush, the greatest tactician and military mind the world has ever seen.

*pukes lungs out*

thats not even funny man.....

George W. Bush, the greatest tactician and military mind the world has ever seen.

If you call getting pwned by Arab teenagers "tactical brilliance", then sure.

:rolleyes:

I think the best general is probably Erich von Manstein. I may oppose the side he fought for, but I still admire him as a brilliant and able tactician in a class of his own.

Finally, I was wondering if I was going to be the first to mention him.

George W. Bush, the greatest tactician and military mind the world has ever seen
Erm, I support this guy, and I'm trying to wonder if you're being sarcastic or just stupid.

Also a racist, sadist war criminal who said that to the Southerners "death was mercy," committed myriad war crimes during the Civil War (against civilians, I might add), and after the war did his fair share of massacring Native Americans. Truly a piece of dishonorable scum.
Sherman, in my book, was an even better general than Lee. Lee was good, but he was stuck in the past and WAY too focused on Virginia's fate rather than the CSA.
And ZOMG!! A General's armies does bad stuff to civillians! THAT WAS SO NEW AND UNIQUE for those generalz!!!!!:rolleyes:
Please. As he said, "war is hell."

If you call getting pwned by Arab teenagers "tactical brilliance", then sure.

:rolleyes:

But what if you do call that tactical brilliance?

My top 5 were hard to narrow down so I have my 5 FAVORITE then my opinon of the 5 best.

Favorites
1-Erwin Rommel = His initive is why he is one of my favorites. At Matuhr he left 1400 men to "Surround" a fresh New Zealand division while his tanks charged ahead towards El Ammien. Thats called risky, but it worked for the most part.
2-Belisarius = He is very overlooked in history but he kicked some major butt.
3-Gunderian = Practically invented the ideal of Blitzkrieg.
4-Hoth = Had good record. And with a name like Hoth how couldnt you like him?
5-Robert E. Lee = Fought hard and well. Plus he has a ryming name :D

Best
1-Hard to pick. Its a tie between Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder or Zhou Yu. Von Moltke for the swift victories over France and Austria. Zhou Yu becuase of Chi Bi. (At Chi Bi Wei China had an estimated 200 000 - 800 000 men he had 50 000)
2-Hermann Der Cherusker = 127 (At beginning, later 4000) vs 20 000 and he won. That is all I have to say.
3-Von Mannstein = He served very well even though he fought with Hitler over almost every action and move they were making he avoided death because he was to good to throw away.
4-Ghengis Khan = He led the MONGOLIANS to conquest of most of the known world at the time and established the largest land empir eever.
5-Napoleon = Ambitious. His victory at Austerlitz proved he was good. At Waterloo hecould have won if he didnt have that stomach ache.
1-Erwin Rommel = His initive is why he is one of my favorites. At Matuhr he left 1400 men to "Surround" a fresh New Zealand division while his tanks charged ahead towards El Ammien. Thats called risky, but it worked for the most part.
I don't recall that ever happening but i do recall Minqar Qaim, which was shear brilliance the NEw Zealand Division outnumbered 4-1, facing 2 Panzer Divisions and an Italian Armoured Division and an Italian Infantry Division completely cut off from the rest of 8th Army with only the prospects of massacre or surrender the next morning staged a brilliaint night attack smashing through the 21st Panzer Division and making off for 8th Army lines.
Inglis led the breakout but Freyberg that indestructible force who was wounded over 7 times in the two World Wars is one of my favourite Generals.
Only the incident of Crete is a mark on his name and that comes down to a suspect Enigma cypher which may or may not have had a full stop in it.
4-Hoth = Had good record. And with a name like Hoth how couldnt you like him?
Hoth does have a sexy name, Hoth, mmmmmmmm

Naked Force has resolved more problems than anything else in human history. I seriously doubt that will ever change.

Robert Heinlein said it the best:
"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois, Starship Troopers

My very favourite?

Sir Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington. He contributed almost more than anyone else to Napoleon's eventual defeat, although I daresay the invasion of Russia did more damage; I'd hazard that without Wellington, though, and even with the Russian winter, we wouldn't have beaten Napoleon or at least not quite so quickly.
And as a matter of fact, Napoleon did not lose the Battle of Waterloo because of a stomach ache. Try reading some history books, whoever it was.

Ilaer

Sir Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington.

A much underrated general, I think. His record, from being an officer in India through to the Waterloo campaign, is astounding. Plus, I approve of his no-nonsense approach to dealing with blackmail.

His reactionary attitudes and sheer lack of tact made him hugely unpopular with a lot of powerful people (and the voters, of course) - I imagine that this is a major factor in the lack of recognition he seems to get.

A much underrated general, I think. His record, from being an officer in India through to the Waterloo campaign, is astounding. Plus, I approve of his no-nonsense approach to dealing with blackmail.

His reactionary attitudes and sheer lack of tact made him hugely unpopular with a lot of powerful people (and the voters, of course) - I imagine that this is a major factor in the lack of recognition he seems to get.

Indeed. I look upon the Marathas campaign in sheer awe; to triumph against such a mobile and well-armed foe must have required sheer genius on his part.
He wasn't quite so good a politician, though, and did a fair amount of damage to the reputation of the Tories I feel. However, he always acted as he saw fit, and because of that I can't attach blame to him.

I commend your knowledge of history, by the way; there are few people who even remember that he once served in India, and they tend to think of him fighting a single battle (Waterloo, of course) despite the other theatres in which he fought at various times.

Ilaer

I'm ignoring morality here - a lot of these guys were also large-scale war criminals

1. Chinggis Khaan (the proper spelling) - led the Mongolians to conquer Asia, including the Chinese and Persian empires. You don't get much better than that.
2. Hannibal - tactical genius.
3. Mohammed - similarly to Chinggis Khaan, led Arab tribesmen to conquer much of the Middle East. He isn't as high up as Khaan because he did not conquer two mighty empires, and he had the added benefit of religious fervor.
4. Alexander the Great - another mighty conqueror. Not as high as Khaan or Mohammed, because Alexander had a proven military force at his command. Realize that the Macedonians had just finished bringing Greece under their rule.
5. Gustavus Adolphus - briefly made Sweden a major European power. Also one of the few competent kings of his era.

Also, I have to mention G-d here. I didn't list Him earlier, since He has the advantages of omniscience (ie perfect intelligence), omnipotence (controls reality), and infinite intelligence (He can outsmart any general). However, He did lead a bunch of ex-slaves to conquer the Holy Land. That has to get an honorable mention.

He wasn't quite so good a politician, though, and did a fair amount of damage to the reputation of the Tories I feel.

You can say that again - he was a walking attitude problem. I presume sending him to the Congress of Vienna was a rare example of the British Government showing a sense of humour.

Probably been said, but General Tso. That chicken dish is absolutely brilliant! :D

2. Hannibal - tactical genius.


And no doubt an inspirational leader, managing to take an army of mercenaries from Africa to Italy by a crazy route. Fortunately for Rome, however, he was a useless strategist. For me a truly great general has to be a great strategist. Otherwise, why bother? For all the good he did, Hannibal might as well have stayed at home.

I totally agree with you about Alexander - he had the benefit of Philip II's hard work.

Naked Force has resolved more problems than anything else in human history. I seriously doubt that will ever change.

Hardly. Most problems solved without violence, however, do not make the news (or the history books). Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

You can say that again - he was a walking attitude problem. I presume sending him to the Congress of Vienna was a rare example of the British Government showing a sense of humour.

A very rare example.

Ilaer

A very rare example.


Heh.
What's Grimsby like these days? I lived in Wybers Wood in the 80s.

1. Saladin
2. Napoleon
3. Francis Drake (Yes, not a general, but still formidable in battle.)
4. Alaric the Goth
5. Frederick Townsend Ward (Best mercenary general of all time as far as I'm concerned.)

General Gaius Cornelius Scipio "Africanus"

"Fuck you Hannibal!"

Best ever-

1.Nathan Bedford Forrest
2.Von Manstein
3.George S. Patton
4.Stonewall Jackson
5.Erwin Rommel

2. Mao Tse Tung. True, he was a Red, but he was able to devise how to effectively wage a guerrilla war.

Sorry but major grrr here - please please please spell it 'Zedong' - the Wade-Giles translation method is both insane and shite. They created Pinyin for a reason y'know :p

Robert Heinlein said it the best:
"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois, Starship Troopers


Hardly. Most problems solved without violence, however, do not make the news (or the history books). Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

Ooooh Heinlein vs Asimov! Clash of the sci-fi writers! Wonder who'll come out on top?

Oh and let's be honest here, violence is the last resort of the incompetent when you have the benefit of being a fictional character whos entire strategy has been planned out with the benefits of both psychohistory and a writer who knows the ending :p

That being said, Hardin is far and away my favourite Mayor. He is just the sex in Mayor form.

And no doubt an inspirational leader, managing to take an army of mercenaries from Africa to Italy by a crazy route. Fortunately for Rome, however, he was a useless strategist. For me a truly great general has to be a great strategist. Otherwise, why bother? For all the good he did, Hannibal might as well have stayed at home.
Excuse me? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae) You're talking about the greatest enemy of one of the strongest empires the world has ever seen.

Anthony Wayne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Wayne)

"There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword."

“In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten, then he who continues the attack wins.”

“The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on.”

-Ulysses S. Grant

It's got to be Guang Gong. The only general elevated to godhood. Furthermore, he is worhipped by billions of chinese worldwide. There is not a shop in chinatown that does not have a shrine to him somewhere. Plus my girlfriends dad looks just like him (minus armour and spear).

Heh.
What's Grimsby like these days? I lived in Wybers Wood in the 80s.

Hmmmm? Not too bad; slowly declining in terms of average wealth though, I believe.
You don't see as much rubbish as you used to, admittedly.
It's busier as well.
Then again, I can't compare it very well to the 80s; I was only born in 1991.

How's wherever you live? :)

Ilaer

Excuse me? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae) You're talking about the greatest enemy of one of the strongest empires the world has ever seen.

Yes and what did he do, or rather utterly fail to do, after Cannae?
A textbook case of superb tactics let down by an utter lack of strategy. How else did he inflict a string of crushing defeats on the Romans in their own territory, then still go on to lose the war? It's inexcusable. It actually makes me angry to even think about such a shocking waste of lives, energy and time. No, brilliant battle leader though he was, Hannibal's lack of a strategic view cost him the war and ultimately cost Carthage its very existence.

Add, to Ilaer: Hmm.... there's much less of a fishing industry, for one thing. I'm in the south - generally speaking I think it's true what they say about the south being less friendly. It's not that the people are bad, it's just that it's kind of harder to break the ice.

Yes and what did he do, or rather utterly fail to do, after Cannae?
A textbook case of superb tactics let down by an utter lack of strategy. How else did he inflict a string of crushing defeats on the Romans in their own territory, then still go on to lose the war? It's inexcusable. It actually makes me angry to even think about such a shocking waste of lives, energy and time. No, brilliant battle leader though he was, Hannibal's lack of a strategic view cost him the war and ultimately cost Carthage its very existence.

Add, to Ilaer: Hmm.... there's much less of a fishing industry, for one thing. I'm in the south - generally speaking I think it's true what they say about the south being less friendly. It's not that the people are bad, it's just that it's kind of harder to break the ice.

I agree with The Pictish Revival on the score of Hannibal; he was a superb tactician but a useless strategist. Unfortunately, there are very few people who distinguish between tactics and strategy.

To The Pictish Revival:
I suppose that's true; I don't have much experience with people in the south, but I have heard that it's harder to get to know them.

Ilaer